Jump to content

still no minorities hired this year...


IowaBills

Recommended Posts

These general theoretical comments (some of which make bizarre generalizations about racial groups which are simply a stupid way to judge individuals who are members of that racial group even if they were true) have little to do with application to the specific case of the NFL and use of the Rooney Rule.

 

The NFL coaches and HC jobs really represent such an incredibly small group of jobs (there are only 32 NFL HC jobs in the world) and an incredibly small group of qualified applicants that trying to draw rules which should be applied to these particular cases from the general stats can get pretty silly pretty quick.

 

In addition, there are some solutions which would create a result which would be fair to the folks involved which have no real application to societal treatment of this issue.

 

Also, folks are taking general rules which certainly are applicable to how government should operate, but they are applying them to how a private business operate and these are two different things were even when the same principles are applied there can be very different approaches mandated or dictated to produce the same results.

 

Its just extremely sloppy to say that the principles which have driven the acceptance of the Rooney rule by this business called the NFL means that the pool of HCs should have x amount of Native Americans, Asians or women,

 

The Rooney rule was adopted and crafted to remedy past race based results where the NFL had hired no or very men of African-American descent as HCs even though a majority of the current and recent players are of African-American descent.

 

I wisj folks would get beyond the idiocy that this rule somehow dictates that some number of Asians, Native Americans or other groups that have been discriminated against in our society are HCs.

 

That is not the intent, thought or practice behind the folks who thought up or agreed to live within this rule and quiite frankly one looks like a moron to insist otherwise.

577239[/snapback]

 

 

FFS, we have to learn to stop arguing with idiots. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.

 

You, me and several others have made the point clearly. The reality is too obvious to deny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FFS, we have to learn to stop arguing with idiots.  They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.

 

You, me and several others have made the point clearly.  The reality is too obvious to deny.

577508[/snapback]

 

If they're idiots, what does that make you for arguing with them. An uber idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the key issues in this thread is what the racial composition of the pool of qualified coaches looks like. Some of those who argue for more racially-based hiring practices say that the racial composition of head coaches should be like the racial composition of players in the NFL generally. This opinion is unreasonable because:

 

1. Not all successful head coaches are former players

2. Not all players are fit to be head coaches

 

To show how the latter point affects the racial composition of the pool of qualified head coaching candidates, I'll start by making two assumptions:

 

1. The average black person is as intelligent as the average white person.

2. The average black person is more athletic than the average white person.

 

Taken together, these assumptions mean that:

1. All else being equal, the percentage of blacks in the NFL will be higher than in the general population.

2. The subset of players fit to be coaches will more closely resemble the general population's racial composition, than it does the racial composition of the league.

 

This second point is true because almost no white people are athletically gifted enough to get by on athleticism alone. So the sample of white people the NFL has collected is skewed to eliminate stupid whites, motivation-issue whites, etc. The ones who didn't get weeded out generally possess positive qualities that can carry over into coaching.

 

But the more athleticism you have, the more you can get by with a lower I.Q., or a worse work ethic, or a lower level of toughness. Because black people are disproportionately able to use athleticism to cover over other weaknesses, the sample of black people the NFL has collected will do a better job of reflecting the general black population than the sample of whites it's collected does at reflecting the general white population. Only the smartest, most passionate, and hardest-working whites are able to play in the NFL, because these traits are needed to overcome a lack of elite athleticism. But while many black players likewise use intelligence, work ethic, etc. to overcome lack of athleticism, many others use athleticism to overcome a lack of intelligence. Those in this latter category are not part of the pool of qualified coaching candidates.

 

Do you really want Leon Lett in the coaching booth, trying to win a chess match against Charlie Weis? I didn't think so. Do you want Deion Sanders trying to instill a sense of toughness and good tackling on your defense? I don't either. Do you want Sam Adams, who himself has struggled with motivation issues, to be the one to get your team to show up and play hard each week? Me neither.

 

Those three men used elite athleticism to have long and successful careers, despite having limitations that will keep them from ever being successful coaches. On the other hand, you have black players like Tony Dungy. He had a good work ethic, lots of toughness, and a good head on his shoulders. He didn't need to use athleticism to mask other weaknesses. But players like that represent a much lower percentage of the black player pool than they do of the white player pool, because a better job was done of getting rid of stupid/lazy/soft whites before they could get into the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...